Speeding summons

xl500

Hi

I today recieved a speeding fine summons for speeding in a 60 zone almost 18 months ago

the summons states "you did drive"

Now i am not saying it didnt happen but I have no idea who was driving the car on the date we have at least 4 people who drive the car

How can they say you did drive is the onus on me to say who was driving

rex-x

xl500 wrote: »

Hi

I today recieved a speeding fine summons for speeding in a 60 zone almost 18 months ago

the summons states "you did drive"

Now i am not saying it didnt happen but I have no idea who was driving the car on the date we have at least 4 people who drive the car

How can they say you did drive is the onus on me to say who was driving

Yes, if you cant nominate then you take the points, its up to the owner to know who is driving their car.

Is it a ticket or a summons? if a summons the car must have been flying and a ban is coming your way

SBPhoto

As the registered owner you are responsible for the car in the event of a speeding fine ect. as stated you can nominate who was driving on the occasion it happened and they take the points

NinetyTwoTeam

They send it to whoever the reg is under and yes the onus will be on you to prove it wasn't. Judge will ask you in court but if you say it was someone else they will ask if the person you say driving is present, if they are not they will adjourn it and you'll have to come back on another date with that person. The judge will also ask the prosecutor if there is any photographic evidence.

Is it a summons or fixed penalty?

mikeecho

The summons says that you were driving, because it is you that is being accused of the offence.
If the summons was for any other matter, it would also be worded "that you did xyx"

That's just the legal wording that is used when summons are written .

As for naming someone else, well that should have been done when the initial ticket arrived in the post.
Your options now.. go to court, plead not guilty and inform the judge who was driving. And let the Gardai pursue the matter from there on, if they so choose.
But it'll be up to the judge whether he believes you or not.

By the way, is the summons as a result of a speeding offence detected by a speed van, or by having been stopped by a Garda ?


Edit.. put up a pic of what you received.. blank out the name / address / reg

GBX

Does it take 18 months for these to arrive in general?

Esel

Is there a maximum amount of time after the offence in which the summons can be served?

mikeecho

Esel wrote: »

Is there a maximum amount of time after the offence in which the summons can be served?

No.. the summons just has to be applied for within 6months of the offence.
It can be served up to 7 or 10 days before the court date.

xl500

Sorry just checked its almost 17 months it says I exceeded Speed 71 in a 60 zone its a summons to appear in court and I did not get initial letter not surprising but I am not using that as an excuse just trying to prepare for court

Date of speeding 26 Jan 2016 I have no idea who was driving car on that date if you asked me who was driving it 3 weeks ago on a certain date i wouldnt be sure

SO under the law even though I have no idea who was driving and thats genuine someone who may not have been driving will be awarded points

rex-x

xl500 wrote: »

Sorry just checked its 14 months it says I exceeded Speed 71 in a 60 zone its a summons to appear in court and I did not get initial letter not surprising but I am not using that as an excuse just trying to prepare for court

Date of speeding 6 apr 2016 I have no idea who was driving car on that date if you asked me who was driving it 3 weeks ago on a certain date i wouldnt be sure

SO under the law even though I have no idea who was driving and thats genuine someone who may not have been driving will be awarded points

Yes thats correct, its one of the responsibilities of owning a car that you know who was driving at all times, otherwise everyone would just say "ah sure judge I haven't a notion, could have been anyone driving that day". If you cant nominate then you take the hit in default, unless the car is reported stolen.

grogi

rex-x wrote: »

Yes, if you cant nominate then you take the points, its up to the owner to know who is driving their car.

Is it a ticket or a summons? if a summons the car must have been flying and a ban is coming your way

It feels sooooo wrong. It should be proven that particular person was driving a car, it is a person who commits an offence, not the car nor owner.

The owner might be fined for not showing who did drive the car however.

grogi

rex-x wrote: »

Yes thats correct, its one of the responsibilities of owning a car that you know who was driving at all times, otherwise everyone would just say "ah sure judge I haven't a notion, could have been anyone driving that day". If you cant nominate then you take the hit in default, unless the car is reported stolen.

Can you point to particular regulation?

xl500

And is it normal to get a summons 17 months after alleged offence

gerard2210

Does the location /time of the offence give you any clue as too who was driving? Ask for the photo might show who was driving.

rex-x

grogi wrote: »

It feels sooooo wrong. It should be proven that particular person was driving a car, it is a person who commits an offence, not the car nor owner.

The owner might be fined for not showing who did drive the car however.

The owner is technically fined for not showing who drove the car, the penalty just happens to be the same as the person driving would have got The system actually makes perfect sense, the ownus should be on the owner and rightly so, it would be stupid to expect any more proof from the fine issuers.

mikeecho

grogi wrote: »

Can you point to particular regulation?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/107/enacted/en/html

Duty to give information on demand by member of Garda Síochána.

107.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána alleges to a person using a mechanically propelled vehicle that the member suspects that such person has committed a specified offence under this Act, the member may demand of such person his name and address and may, if such person refuses or fails to give his name and address or gives a name or address which the member has reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading, arrest such person without warrant.

(2) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence under this Act has been committed and that the vehicle in relation to which the offence was committed does not carry its identification mark under the Roads Act, 1920 , or any other enactment, the member may arrest without warrant the person whom he has reasonable grounds for believing was using the vehicle when the offence was so believed to have been committed.

(3) Where a person, when his name and address is demanded of him under this section, refuses or fails to give his name and address or gives a name or address which is false or misleading, such person shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that there has been an offence under this Act involving the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle—

(a) the owner of the vehicle shall, if required by the member state whether he was or was not actually using the vehicle at the material time and, if he fails to do so, shall be guilty of an offence,

(b) if the owner of the vehicle states that he was not actually using it at the material time, he shall give such information as he may be required by the member to give as to the identity of the person who was actually using it at that time and, if he fails to do so, shall be guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who that person was,

(c) any person other than the owner of the vehicle shall, if required by the member, give any information which it is in his power to give and which may lead to the identification of the person who was actually using the vehicle at the material time and, if he fails to do so, shall be guilty of an offence.

xl500

mikeecho wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/107/enacted/en/html

Duty to give information on demand by member of Garda Síochána.



(b) if the owner of the vehicle states that he was not actually using it at the material time, he shall give such information as he may be required by the member to give as to the identity of the person who was actually using it at that time and, if he fails to do so, shall be guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who that person was,

So this would seem to imply that it is possible to say you do not know who was driving and its not automatically applied to you but at the discretion of judge

rex-x

xl500 wrote: »

mikeecho wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/107/enacted/en/html

Duty to give information on demand by member of Garda Síochána.



(b) if the owner of the vehicle states that he was not actually using it at the material time, he shall give such information as he may be required by the member to give as to the identity of the person who was actually using it at that time and, if he fails to do so, shall be guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who that person was,

So this would seem to imply that it is possible to say you do not know who was driving and its not automatically applied to you but at the discretion of judge

That more covers if the car was stolen etc

mikeecho

OP
Put on a pot of coffee, and read the road traffic act, or engage a solicitor.

As the registered keeper you are responsible for the car, unless you can nominate another driver.
The exception being that you cannot if the vehicle was subject to an unauthorised taking. (Which should have been reported at the time)

Don't mean to be blunt, but that's the long and short of it.

xl500

mikeecho wrote: »

OP
Put on a pot of coffee, and read the road traffic act, or engage a solicitor.

As the registered keeper you are responsible for the car, unless you can nominate another driver.
The exception being that you cannot if the vehicle was subject to an unauthorised taking. (Which should have been reported at the time)

Don't mean to be blunt, but that's the long and short of it.

NO thats fine just its nearly 18 months ago and i genuinely have no idea which of us was driving

The J Stands for Jay

Does anyone know how the OP would go about getting the picture of their car speeding? If it showed who was driving, I'd say that'd end the thread pretty quick.

mikeecho

xl500 wrote: »

NO thats fine just its nearly 18 months ago and i genuinely have no idea which of us was driving

Engage a solicitor, and let him argue that point.

"Justice delayed is justice denied "

RustyNut

rex-x wrote: »

That more covers if the car was stolen etc

I'd say any decent solicitor could make a good argument out of that.

Victor

gerard2210 wrote: »

Ask for the photo might show who was driving.

Agreed.

grogi wrote: »

The owner might be fined for not showing who did drive the car however.

Agreed.

xl500 wrote: »

Sorry just checked its almost 17 months it says I exceeded Speed 71 in a 60 zone its a summons to appear in court and I did not get initial letter not surprising

Has your address changed?

SO under the law even though I have no idea who was driving and thats genuine someone who may not have been driving will be awarded points

Make the other car users keep a log of when they are using the car.

GM228

mikeecho wrote: »

grogi wrote: »

rex-x wrote: »

Yes thats correct, its one of the responsibilities of owning a car that you know who was driving at all times, otherwise everyone would just say "ah sure judge I haven't a notion, could have been anyone driving that day". If you cant nominate then you take the hit in default, unless the car is reported stolen.

Can you point to particular regulation?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/107/enacted/en/html

 Duty to give information on demand by member of Garda Síochána.

107.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána alleges to a person using a mechanically propelled vehicle that the member suspects that such person has committed a specified offence under this Act, the member may demand of such person his name and address and may, if such person refuses or fails to give his name and address or gives a name or address which the member has reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading, arrest such person without warrant.

(2) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence under this Act has been committed and that the vehicle in relation to which the offence was committed does not carry its identification mark under the Roads Act, 1920 , or any other enactment, the member may arrest without warrant the person whom he has reasonable grounds for believing was using the vehicle when the offence was so believed to have been committed.

(3) Where a person, when his name and address is demanded of him under this section, refuses or fails to give his name and address or gives a name or address which is false or misleading, such person shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that there has been an offence under this Act involving the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle—

(a) the owner of the vehicle shall, if required by the member state whether he was or was not actually using the vehicle at the material time and, if he fails to do so, shall be guilty of an offence,

(b) if the owner of the vehicle states that he was not actually using it at the material time, he shall give such information as he may be required by the member to give as to the identity of the person who was actually using it at that time and, if he fails to do so, shall be guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who that person was,

(c) any person other than the owner of the vehicle shall, if required by the member, give any information which it is in his power to give and which may lead to the identification of the person who was actually using the vehicle at the material time and, if he fails to do so, shall be guilty of an offence.

Yes section 107 (4)(b) creates the offence of failing to give the details, however the statutory presumption of the owner having committed the offence unless they show otherwise comes fron S38 (3)(b)(i)of the Road Traffic Act 2010, it is yet to be commenced, but it's the position of the courts take.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/25/section/38/enacted/en/html#sec38

38 (3) Where, in a case to whichsection 35 (1)(b) applies, the registered owner of the mechanically propelled vehicle concerned does not give or send in accordance with section 35 (6) the information specified in paragraph (b) of that subsection, then—

(a) in a prosecution of that owner for the alleged offence, which is not a penalty point offence, to which the notice under section 35 (1)(b)relates, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, or

(b) in a prosecution of that owner or another person for the alleged offence, which is a penalty point offence, to which the notice under section 35 (1)(b)relates, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that—

(i) where the registered owner is an individual, he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle

grogi

GM228 wrote: »

Yes section 107 (4)(b) creates the offence of failing to give the details, however the statutory presumption of the owner having committed the offence unless they show otherwise comes fron S38 (3)(b)(i)of the Road Traffic Act 2010.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/25/section/38/enacted/en/html#sec38

Excellent as always... Thank you.

Does it mean that the owner could be prosecuted for two offences? The one committed on the road and for failure of showing the driver?

xl500

GM228 wrote: »

Yes section 107 (4)(b) creates the offence of failing to give the details, however the statutory presumption of the owner having committed the offence unless they show otherwise comes fron S38 (3)(b)(i)of the Road Traffic Act 2010.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/25/section/38/enacted/en/html#sec38

So basically its your car so you get the points if you cant say who was driving

Dial Hard

xl500 wrote:

So basically its your car so you get the points if you cant say who was driving

Yup.

mikeecho

xl500 wrote: »

So basically its your car so you get the points if you cant say who was driving

In a nutshell.. yes

GM228

grogi wrote: »

Excellent as always... Thank you.

Does it mean that the owner could be prosecuted for two offences? The one committed on the road and for failure of showing the driver?

Just the one. There would be no prosecution under S107 for several reasons.

xl500

Is there any time limit as offense was Jan 2016 and only got summons this week

Yawns

They have to APPLY for the summons within 6 months. They can SERVE the summons anytime up to the date basically. It is unusual that it took so long to serve it to you unless something like your address changed.

Homer

In fairness there was a period of time between the alleged offence and the issuing of a ticket.. said ticket went unpaid after 60 days for whatever reason.. AGS then proceed to issue a summons for failure to pay said ticket...

You get the idea.. a summons wasn't issued randomly after 16 months but after a period of non payment of a fine, that could have been issued a number of weeks after the offence originally took place!

Google Maps timeline is great for stuff like that. I can tell you exactly where I went on the date in question, and a parcel from my mum also arrived on that day

GM228

xl500 wrote: »

Is there any time limit as offense was Jan 2016 and only got summons this week

No there is no time limit, although there can be issues with excessive delays, generally around 2 years +.

A court date 18 months later is not unusual but towards the upper lenght of what is expected.

EndaHonesty

If you didn't get the initial fixed charge notice why don't you just say that in court?

xl500

EndaHonesty wrote: »

If you didn't get the initial fixed charge notice why don't you just say that in court?

I will but that may not be accepted I am just trying to prepare for court not trying to get off but its crap i have to get 4 points and a bigger fine as this is definitely the first I heard of it

EndaHonesty

xl500 wrote: »

I will but that may not be accepted I am just trying to prepare for court not trying to get off but its crap i have to get 4 points and a bigger fine as this is definitely the first I heard of it

Once you give evidence under oath it has to be accepted.

That will be the end of the matter.

mikeecho

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Once you give evidence under oath it has to be accepted.

That will be the end of the matter.

And that advice just there, is the reason you should engage a professional, and not rely on high stool legal eagle advice.

rex-x

xl500 wrote: »

I will but that may not be accepted I am just trying to prepare for court not trying to get off but its crap i have to get 4 points and a bigger fine as this is definitely the first I heard of it

Is it still 4 in court? it may be 6 now as the penalty for speeding went up and the court was always double points

honda boi

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Once you give evidence under oath it has to be accepted.

That will be the end of the matter.

Surely if that was the case anyone in court could go under oath and say 'it wasn't me judge'
And no one would ever be convicted.

EndaHonesty

honda boi wrote: »

Surely if that was the case anyone in court could go under oath and say 'it wasn't me judge'
And no one would ever be convicted.

I'm specifically talking about giving evidence under oath that he didn't receive a fixed charge notice.

If he gives evidence under oath that he didn't receive the fixed charge notice the judge has to accept it.

The only way it wouldn't be accepted is if the charging garda could offer contrary evidence that the fixed charge notice had been delivered. There would be no such evidence.

jca

Can you request a larger picture showing the driver's face? It happened my sister in the Netherlands, she was adamant she wasn't driving, turned out it wasn't her, in fact it wasn't even her car they had made a mistake with the reg, a G instead of a 6, something like that.

Del2005

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I'm specifically talking about giving evidence under oath that he didn't receive a fixed charge notice.

If he gives evidence under oath that he didn't receive the fixed charge notice the judge has to accept it.

The only way it wouldn't be accepted is if the charging garda could offer contrary evidence that the fixed charge notice had been delivered. There would be no such evidence.

Depends on the judge. Some believe that the fine wasn't received and allow you to take the original fine and points some don't and hit you with a higher fine and full points. To get off the fine you need to hire a solicitor, but unless you already have a load of points it'll cost you more for the solicitor than the fine and insurance hit.

The problem the OP has is that they are saying that they never received the original notice and don't know who is driving, this will annoy a judge.

OP can you get the other people who could have been driving to check the Timeline on their phones if Google and whatever Apple call their location history? But if you want to fight it you will need to hire a solicitor.

mikeecho

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I'm specifically talking about giving evidence under oath that he didn't receive a fixed charge notice.

If he gives evidence under oath that he didn't receive the fixed charge notice the judge has to accept it.

The only way it wouldn't be accepted is if the charging garda could offer contrary evidence that the fixed charge notice had been delivered. There would be no such evidence.

The judge can accept or not, any evidence he sees fit.
Whether that be direct evidence under oath, or any exhibits.

OP.. get proper advice, and don't believe everything you read here.

What kinda road was it on? Judge might throw it out anyway.

I've seen more than once recently (although i did link to a case recently here) where a judge threw out someone doing 60 in a 50 cos it was 'just a few km over'. If you're only doing 71 in a 60, and it took them 18 months to get around to you, i would reckon you'd have a good chance of it being thrown out.

I think judges obviously take the law seriously, but get annoyed when their time is taken up with trivial things like this.


EDIT:
This is the one i posted on here, but I have seen it before that speeding gets thrown out when it's not a ludicrous speed (mind you, ive seen people nailed to the wall, too, so.. make of it what you will..).

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103398257&postcount=709

xl500

Well Was in Court this morning

No Joy Got convicted 250Euro Fine any options now besides Paying

Victor

xl500 wrote: »

Well Was in Court this morning

No Joy Got convicted 250Euro Fine any options now besides Paying

If you're looking for 'joy, would you like a temporary address on North Circular Road?

Zubeneschamali

xl500 wrote: »

No Joy Got convicted 250Euro Fine any options now besides Paying

You could go on the run, and become an outlaw who travels the West helping the downtrodden and looking for the man who drove his car (past a speed camera).

jca

xl500 wrote: »

Well Was in Court this morning

No Joy Got convicted 250Euro Fine any options now besides Paying

How many points did you get?

xl500

jca wrote: »

How many points did you get?

5 i think very hard to hear judge mumbling